The title is deliberately provocative, but I stand by it. More to the point, it would an insult to everyone whose morality is based on reason more than emotion and knee-jerk outrage. I will proceed to explain why.
I am not, in principle, opposed to the idea that the Citadel sequence isn't real. The sticking point is the part about Destroy being the only option. This presumes that the other two options for the final choice are in some way objectively wrong. This is false. Here is why:
That an idea has been embraced by a villain does not make it bad or wrong. Even the game acknowledges this when Hackett says the Illusive Man "may be on to something" after Sanctuary. The idea to control the Reapers cannot, in any objective sense, be said to be bad or wrong. What makes TIM a villain is not the desire to control the Reapers, but the fact he steps over heaps of corpses and indoctrinates his own people to achieve that control. It is perfectly possible for a rational person with goodwill to say, for instance "Yes, controlling the Reapers is the best way to proceed, because this way we keep our options open" and then look at the heaps of corpses left in TIMs wake and continue "But not like this". I might add that we were never forced to play a good person anyway. Renegades can be real jerks. The only thing Shepard must do is stop the Reapers. That's what makes him a hero and a legend. Otherwise, we could always be power-hungry bastards not at all concerned with justice or mercy.
Also, seeking power is also not bad or wrong. Not even seeking absolute power. If you have power, you will always be judged by how you came to acquire it and by you use it, not by the fact that you have it in the first place. At least, a rational person would make a judgment like that. In practice, it may be undesirable to let someone acquire absolute power because of the *potential* of abuse, but that's a practical matter, not a moral one.
The same applies to the Synthesis. It may pose other ethical problems, but the fact that the idea of organic/synthetic hybrids is associated with Saren is a non-issue. It has absolutely no bearing on the validity and the ethics of the idea itself.
What this means is this: you can honestly believe, based on your own values, that either option for the final choice is a good thing, and there is no rational reason to single out one of them as "correct". Implementing the indoctrination hypothesis would rob players of the ability to make a choice based on their own values, and all on grounds of false reasoning. Basically: "if you think about it, you're wrong". That's insulting. And "If you're a power-hungry bastard, you cannot stop the Reapers"? So far power-hungry bastards could always win, too. Implementing this would destroy many Shepards built up from ME1. I am also seriously dumbfounded that the promoters of the indoctrination hypothesis would rob players of choice. Enshrine your favorite choice as correct and deny others theirs? That's hypocritical.
Now I'm interesting in what others have to say about this.
Summary:
I think implementing the indoctrination theory would be an an insult to rational thinkers because the indoctrination theorists' choice for the "correct" option is based on the false reasoning that association with major villains makes the other options recognizable as being trick answers. The merit of ideas is independent from the morality of those who support them. Anyone who contests this is not thinking rationally and prone to the (very common) delusion that evil is somehow contagious.
Modifié par Ieldra2, 22 mars 2012 - 06:30 .
Retour en haut
raw liver, eyes, brains and tongues that is a feast!
They both have holes the size.
